Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.226, 316 and 320 - State Public Service Commission - Appointment of Chairman - Interference u/Art.226 of the Constitution- Scope - Held: High Court should not normally, in exercise of its power u/Art.226, interfere with the discretion of the State Government in selecting and appointing the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission - But in an exceptional case, if it is shown- that relevant factors implied from the very nature of the duties entrusted to Public Service Commissions u/Art.320 have not been considered by the State Government in selecting and appointing the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission, the High Court can invoke its wide and extra-ordinary powers u/Art.226 and quash the selection and appointment to ensure that the discretion of the State Government is exercised within the bounds of the Constitution -On facts, where appointment of 'H' as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission was quashed by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction u/Art.226, the materials on record do not indicate that 'H' had any knowledge or experience whatsoever· either in administration or in recruitment nor do the materials indicate that he had the qualities to perform the duties as the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission u/Art.320 - Decision of the State Government to appoint 'H' as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission was invalid for non-consideration of relevant factors implied from the very nature of the duties entrusted to Public Service Commissions u/Art.320 - Impugned order of High Court accordingly not interfered with. 

Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.226 - Power under - Exercise of- Scope - Held: Art.226 vests in the High Court the power to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part Ill and for any other purpose.

Public Service Commisison - State Public Service Commission - Appointment of Chairman - Procedure - Implied relevant factors - Held: It is for the Governor who is the appointing authority u/Art.316 to lay down the procedure - But in absence of any procedure laid down by the Governor, the State Government would not have absolute discretion - The State Government has to select only persons with integrity and competence for appointment, because the discretion vested in the State Government u/Art.316 is impliedly limited by the purposes for which the discretion is vested and the purposes are discernible from the functions of the Public Service Commission enumerated in Art. 320 - The State Public Service Commission is expected to act with independence from the State Government and with fairness, besides competence and maturity acquired through knowledge and experience of public administration - Even though Art.316 does not specify the aforesaid qualities of the Chairman of a Public Service Commission, these qualities are amongst the. implied relevant factors which have to be taken into consideration by the Government while determining the competency of the person to be selected and appointed as Chairman of the Public Service Commission u/Art.316 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 316 and 320.

Public Interest Litigation - Selection of 'H' for appointment. as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission -Writ petition challenging such appointment - Maintainability:- . Held: Respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition for espousing the cause of the general public of the State of Punjab with a view to ensure that a person appointed as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission is a man of ability and integrity so that recruitment to public services in the State of Punjab are from the best available talents and are fair and is not influenced by politics and extraneous considerations - Considering the averments in the writ petition, it cannot be · held that the writ petition was just a service matter in which only the aggrieved party had the locus to initiate a legal action in the court of law - The writ petition was a matter affecting cause of the general public of the State of Punjab with a view to ensure that a person appointed as the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission is a man of ability and integrity so that recruitment to public services in the State of Punjab are from the best available talents and are fair and is not influenced by politics and extraneous considerations - Considering the averments in the writ petition, it cannot be · held that the writ petition was just a service matter in which only the aggrieved party had the locus to initiate a legal action in the court of law - The writ petition was a matter affecting interest of the general public in the State of Punjab and any member of the public could espouse the cause of the general public so long as his bonafides were not in doubt - When respondent No. 1 brought to the notice of the High Court through the writ petition that the State Government of Punjab proposed to appoint 'H' as Chairman of the Public Service Commission, only because of his political affiliation, the High Court rightly entertained the writ petition as a public interest litigation.

Practice & Procedure - Reference to larger Bench - Writ petition challenging appointment of 'H' ·as Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission - Division Bench of the High Court made academic reference· to Full Bench of three Judges of the High Court on specific questions of law - Justification - Held: On facts, justified - No merit in the submission that the Division Bench of the High Court having found in its order that the irregularities and illegalities pointed out in the writ petition against 'H' were unsubstantiated, should not have made an academic reference to the larger Bench of the High Court - The Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that the persons to be appointed must have competence· and integrity, but how such persons are to be identified and selected must be considered by a Bench of three Judges and accordingly made the reference - Punjab High Court Rules - rr. 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Practice & Procedure - Reference to larger Bench - Scope of reference - Writ petition challenging appointment of Chairman of the Punjab Public Service Commission - Division Bench of the High Court made reference to Full Bench of three Judges of the High Court on specific questions of law relating to procedure for identifying persons of  competence and integrity for such appointment - Full Bench, instead of deciding the specific questions, gave directions to the State of Punjab and the State of Haryana to follow a particular procedure for appointment of Members and Chairman of the Public Service Commission till such time a  fair, rational, objective and transparent policy to meet the mandate of Art.14 of the Constitution was made- Justification - Held: Not justified - The Full Bench of the High Court decided issues which were not referred to it by the Division Bench of the High Court - It acted beyond its jurisdiction and usurped the-constitutional power of the Governor in laying down the procedure for appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.316.